Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />October 27, 1998 <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Chair Mesich felt the right-in-right-out would create a dangerous situation. Mr. <br />Frank indicated that without the access, development of Lot 1 would be <br />extremely difficult. Mr. Frank added that he will pursue the access issue with the <br />County. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kuester asked Mr. Frank to review the approximate location of <br />signage for the project. She questioned whether or not the traffic to the loading <br />areas would be using the right-in-right-out access. Mr. Frank explained indicated <br />the access pattern to the loading docks. Mr. Gleekel indicated a free-standing <br />pylon sign is proposed to be located in the proximity of Lot 1 off Highway 169. Mr. <br />Gleekel indicated the signage will be discussed in detail with staff in order to <br />comply with the city's ordinances. Scott Harlicker indicated the signage would <br />be similar to Elk Park Center. <br /> <br />Commissioner Chambers questioned whether or not an architectural style has <br />been determined for the project. Mr. Gleekel indicated it is their intent to work <br />with the city and their future tenants regarding the facade of the buildings within <br />the project, signage and landscaping. <br /> <br />Peter Beck explained the PUD agreement will include detailed site plans, <br />landscape plans, and building elevations which will be reviewed the Planning <br />Commission and City Council. In addition, the PUD agreement will provide for <br />review of the free-standing sites on an individual basis through the conditional use <br />process. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Commissioner Chambers indicated that since this intersection is a major link with <br />the downtown, he felt it is a appropriate to have an architectural theme to make <br />that connection. Commissioner Cote expressed his agreement. <br /> <br />Chair Mesich questioned if the individual tenants were named in the PUD process <br />for Elk Park Center. Peter Beck indicated the elevations and sign bands were <br />included for the anchor tenants but not the names. Individual pads were <br />identified for banks, restaurants, etc. and the overall look of the project was <br />established in planning process. Chair Mesich questioned if colors and building <br />facades were approved at that time. Peter Beck indicated he did not recall that <br />those types of items were approved in the conditional use permit for the initial <br />project, but that the city has the authority to go to that level of review. <br /> <br />Commissioner Schuster questioned why a two-way access was not requested. <br />Mr. Frank indicated a two-way access would not be approved and a right-in- <br />right-out was the most they could hope for. <br /> <br />Chair Mesich questioned if the Park and Recreation Commission would be <br />reviewing the project for their recommendation. Scott Harlicker indicated the <br />project would be considered at their November meeting. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cote asked if screening is proposed for the back of the anchor <br />tenant buildings. Mr. Frank felt the spatial separation created by the pond and <br />the 25 foot grade would provide adequate screening and separation. Scott <br />noted evergreens are shown to be planted on the west side of the wetlands <br />adjacent to the buildings. Scott questioned whether or not recessed loading <br />